November 26, 1997         HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS          Vol. XLIII  No. 38


The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Before recognizing the hon. member, the Chair would like to welcome to the House of Assembly today approximately fifty Level One democracy students from the Queen Elizabeth Regional High School represented by the districts, Topsail, Conception Bay South and Conception Bay East - Bell Island. They are accompanied by their teacher Mr. Fred Wood.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of privilege.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today on a point of privilege. The Minister of Health yesterday insinuated in this House and to the press, in a direct statement just outside the doors of the House of Assembly, that I opposed expenditure of $3 million to cardiac care. A statement, Mr. Speaker, that was malicious and untrue. Everyone knows I have carried the battle for over four years for extra funding for the area of cardiac care. I ask the minister, will she stand in her place and withdraw that statement?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health, to the point of privilege raised.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Is this responding to a point of privilege?

MR. SPEAKER: Is the hon. member -

MS J.M. AYLWARD: No, I am not.

MR. SPEAKER: No, okay.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise on a point of order, yesterday in the House during oral questions the -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has to deal with the point of privilege that the hon. member raised. Is the hon. Minister of Justice responding to that point of privilege?

MR. DECKER: There is no evidence of a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker. This was a debate, simply no more than a disagreement between two hon. members. Certainly I don't see any basis for a point of privilege.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair will just take the point raised under advisement and report back to the House.

On a point of order, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise on a point of order. Yesterday in the House during oral questions the Minister of Education in answering the question put by my colleague, the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi, began with a lighthearted commentary regarding the question itself and that's understandable. In fact, he said he believed that some members of the official Opposition were - to use his words or to paraphrase his words - jockeying to put questions on the Order Paper in Question Period, that is part of what he perceives as aspirations for the leadership of the PC Party.

Mr. Speaker, I have no difficulty with the lighthearted bantering that often characterizes debate in the House. However, yesterday the minister, in jest, made comments that have been reported in the local press as factual. Let me quote from Hansard. What the minister said was, "It was only a couple of days ago with respect to an issue like this, Mr. Speaker, a real question about a matter concerning education, that one of the members of the Official Opposition actually leaned over - I think it is against the rules of the House - and stole an issue off the desk of the Leader of the NDP...".

Mr. Speaker, we in the Official Opposition would not bother to comment on this particular matter or that type of exchange; however, yesterday afternoon on CBC Radio, and again this morning on both CBC and on VOCM, the comments made by the minister are taken as factual and, in fact, are being interpreted by the listening audience as exactly what was said. That, certainly, I do not think was the intention of the minister, and I would ask him today if he would clarify that comment so that things that are said in jest are not taken or misinterpreted by the media or by the listening public as being statements of fact.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do concur with the hon. Opposition House Leader that I think everybody in this Legislature understood that my reference to one of their members stealing an issue off the desk of the Leader of the Opposition - they did try to piggyback on his issue. Everybody understands that it was in jest. I think everybody in the House understood that.

With respect to the other issue that was raised in the point of order, I understand, and everybody on this side understands, that nobody over there wants the leadership of that Party and they should be concerned about it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Really, there is no point of order raised by the hon. member.

 

Statements by Ministers

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, over the last few days we have heard numerous irresponsible and baseless comments which I feel must be addressed to negate the fearmongering by the Opposition and to help restore the faith people have in the public health system we enjoy in this Province.

We have heard the Opposition say people should remain in hospital for longer periods in order to receive better medical care. That is false. In fact, throughout this country and indeed throughout North America, people need less time in hospital to receive the effective medical attention they require. Mr. Speaker, for example, in a study by the Manitoba Centre for Health Policy and Evaluation, and reported in the Canadian Medical Association Journal, it was determined that hospital bed closures have not been at the expense of patients' health. The report further revealed that while hospital stays have gotten shorter, some hospitals still keep patients longer than appears necessary. The results of this study were similar to American studies and obviously have more merit than the misinformation of the Opposition.

We have heard from the Opposition critic, through the media, that there is a plan to reduce the beds in the St. John's area to 768. This was reported on a local talk show by the member, yet, he has not produced any such plan and the Health Care Corporation of St. John's tells me the actual number is 1,181, and that is after hospital site relocations are completed in St. John's. Currently, Mr. Speaker, there are 1,225 beds and I would like to point out, that is more than a 300-bed discrepancy. These correct figures are based more on a direction towards a community health model and optimizing hospitals rather than downsizing them.

We have heard the Opposition suggest that re-admissions to hospitals are happening on a frequent basis and are costing taxpayers more money than if people remained in hospitals for longer periods. That is false. In this Province last year, over 66,000 surgical procedures were performed and of all of those patients less than 1 per cent, Mr. Speaker, were readmitted for infections. The Manitoba report demonstrated that while hospital stays were indeed shorter, people were not being re-admitted any more than before for infections. In fact, the hospital which had the second lowest re-admission rate for heart patients discharged them the fastest, Mr. Speaker.

We have heard the Opposition suggest that people are having high rates of infections and re-infections because of early discharges from hospitals. That is false. For instance, the national average of class 3 or serious re-infections in this country is over 25 per cent. At the Health Care Corporation in St. John's this year, the rate is 2.7 per cent.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS J. M. AYLWARD: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not playing with numbers, I am stating the facts.

The average for our Province is well within the norms which are internationally established and also accepted throughout Canada. This statistic is nothing to be ashamed of considering the number of procedures performed.

We have heard from the Leader of the Opposition, on one occasion, that government should not export jobs by sending people away for elective cardiac surgery. On another occasion, he said that more people should have access to cardiac surgery from outside this Province, and additionally, they should be able to bring family members with them. His contradictions do nothing to benefit people who are worried about their health and the health of a family member. Mr. Speaker, over 100 people were offered the option of having their surgeries performed in another Province. Yet, the majority of them decided against the option for their own reasons. Of the approximately forty people who did want to go, twenty-nine have already had their surgeries. The remaining surgeries are scheduled for December and January. Mr. Speaker, we are trying to accommodate people by giving them options, while we wait for another month or so until the renovations at the General Hospital can allow a reduction in the waiting time for cardiac surgeries.

Mr. Speaker, this government is taking decisive action on a number of fronts to address the waiting list for cardiac surgery. We provided over $1 million last year for service delivery enhancement and to make renovations possible for the ICU to increase the beds from fourteen to seventeen. We have announced that there will be dedicated beds available within the new renovations at the General Hospital, which will be completed and will be operational in January of next year. We allocated a new $3 million for the development of a dedicated cardiovascular unit for the recovery of cardiovascular patients. We are actively recruiting a new cardiovascular surgeon. We have tried to accommodate people who have been on the waiting list for cardiac surgery for more than six months by offering the option of having their surgeries performed in other provinces. Mr. Speaker, we are not paying lip service like the Opposition. We are acting and we are continuing to act to improve and enhance health and health care for the Province.

Anecdotes and stories of individual, anonymous patients may serve the needs of the Opposition, Mr. Speaker, but they do nothing but promote fear if they have no basis in fact. They must be part of the complete story which includes statistics outlining provincial, national and international trends in medicine. The only purpose served by this direction by the Opposition is to demoralize hospital staff and promote fear in patients who need certainly no more stress than they are already incurring while receiving medical care.

Our hospitals provide the means for institutional care, as clearly defined in the Canada Health Act. The staff of those hospitals provide a valuable service through their dedication and hard work and I want to publicly commend them and thank them. Over the last few years in this country the medical community throughout the world have seen the merit in moving away from institutional care and towards community care, and we are also moving in that direction. Neither doctors, nurses, or support staff, rush a person out of a hospital before they are well enough to leave. However, the medical team is the qualified and capable group which has to make medical decisions related to waiting lists and hospital discharges.

Mr. Speaker, opponents of any government have a role to play; however, they also have a responsibility to the people they represent. Opinions, innuendo, speculation and political opportunism must take a back seat to the truth when we are dealing with the health of the people of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Health is an extremely important area, and so I urge the members opposite to take the politics out of health. If you feel the need to deal with health issues politically, then perhaps you can join us, the government, to continue to lobby the federal government for more money for health and health care in this Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will just make one reference to her last comment and then I will get down to the facts of the issue, that she has misrepresented here today.

The Premier, your leader, was the person who presided over this Province federally when we went from $19 billion to $12.5 billion for cuts in health care, and transfers.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: He was the person representing us, and he had the audacity to say on public television that we are going to have another $1.5 billion back. They are not going to cut us the $1.5 billion that they were going to cut us. Not one extra cent is in health care this year because of federal transfers than there was last year. There is not a commitment of $1 more, and that has been out in the public, a misconception, that he and you have put out in the public.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: You are the one who inflicted this upon us. That is why we are having the problems, Premier.

I will get to the facts of the issue. Number one: I, as Opposition Leader, said that you should not be sending people home from hospitals when the resources are not in the community to take care of them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: I support sending people home if the resources are there. You have not provided them. You have provided lip service to community health and you have not delivered, I say to the minister. You should know better.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: You are distorting figures. Almost ninety people in hospitals in this city today are medically discharged, waiting for beds in nursing homes - almost ninety. It varies when you look at the Miller Centre and any other hospitals around this city. Your numbers are camouflaged and they are not accurate, I say to the minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Secondly, the minister talks about surgical procedures, we have day surgery. She is trying to hide the real facts. I can give instances to you, minister, where people are back in hospital in the third month because they got infection from the surgery. Their kidneys have failed and they are on dialysis three times a day. I speak with people almost every single day, real cases of people who had surgery today. Seven out of eight came back in one hospital here in this city very recently in one specific area. This is happening. I asked a question, but it is not in infection statistics for last year. I said to you minister, there is an increase recently in the rate of infections and you are trying to hide that with figures that you have tucked away and back over the last year or two. They are outdated, minister, we are dealing with today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: You are trying to put a different slant on this. I tell you what we should do and clarify it where I have been on cardiac surgery because you, the former minister and this government have procrastinated. Here is what we need to do now and I have said it many times, we need to have a separate intensive care dedicated to cardiac care and because the number has gone from 100 to over 240, we have to continue, when we get that in January, and later when the Health Sciences Centre is restructured, we still have to continue sending people away until we get the list under control and down to a certain level. That is what we need to do minister. That is clear and I have said it time and time again. You took my statements and gave false statements out to the public that are not accurate and I will stand on every single statement that I made because they came from authoritative sources, I say to the minister!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: You have already made false statements here today. False statements in this document, it is a farce. What cardiac surgeon is going to come in, I say to the minister, when less than nine get done a week? We have two surgeons, they do one a day, that is less than a full weeks work for two. You have to put the facility in place. You have to have the structure in place and you have to have the commitment -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: - to allow the surgery to get done before we get a cardiac surgeon.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: Well I will tell the Premier -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: By leave, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, because I am mad about this issue and I don't like untruths.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour.

MR LANGDON: Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to provide a status report on government's review of the Workers' Compensation Statutory Review Committee Report of the Workers' Compensation Act. I am also announcing government's first response to this report which will see an increase to benefits and claimants. The status report I am providing here today outlines the beginning of government's efforts to address the recommendations of the Statutory Review Committee.

Mr. Speaker, upon receipt of this report in May 1997, my department undertook to immediately review, analyze and consult on the recommendations in this report. This involved further consultations with Workers' Compensation Commission, the Board of Directors, individual stakeholders and associations including the Board of Trade, the Employers Council, the Federation of Labour, the Injured Workers' Association and many others.

As recently as Monday of this week, the Federation of Labour met with me to provide this response to this critical report. Given the extensive consultations, we have been able to hold to date, I am breaking with tradition to provide hon. members with a status report in advance of a more detailed and complete announcement following the full review.

Throughout the consultations held to date with stakeholders, I have sensed a spirit of co-operation between workers and employers in an effort to ensure that Newfoundland and Labrador's Workers' Compensation System continues to serve the needs of all stakeholders.

Given the magnitude of the report and the broad range of complex issues, the analysis of this report needs to be detailed and comprehensive to ensure that the changes we make are appropriate to the needs of workers and employers. We consider this level of consultation and analysis essential prior to introducing the full range of amendments which will affect the Workers' Compensation System, injured workers, and employers for the next five years.

Mr. Speaker, a Statutory Review such as this is commissioned every five years to ensure that the rights and responsibilities of workers are kept up to date. We have made this report a major priority within the department and we expect to have the review completed by the spring of 1998. We will work as diligently as possible to also have the legislative amendments necessary to bring about government's response.

As indicated in the Statutory Review Report, the changes to the system of workers' compensation needs to be addressed in a holistic manner. Mr. Speaker, we accept and support this approach and are taking measures to accomplish this goal. I commit to you here today, government will announce a complete list of changes to workers' compensation early in 1998 and we will bring the whole Legislative changes in the next sitting of the House.

Mr. Speaker, as you are aware, employers and employees and this government are deeply concerned about providing fair and equitable benefits to injured workers, while at the same time ensuring the long-term financial viability of the Workers' Compensation System. This government, Mr. Speaker, is committed to ensuring that Newfoundland and Labrador has a system that is responsive, sustainable, and provides an adequate level of benefits to injured workers. Government's response will address issues that have arisen in the past such as deeming, employer assessment, benefits, rehabilitation and administration.

Mr. Speaker, while the consultations on this major report are still under way, I am taking steps here today, to announce that government is initiating action to amend legislation during this session of the House to introduce an increase in certain benefits. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce that government decided to increase benefits from 75 per cent to 80 per cent effective January 1, 1998 -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR LANGDON: - for the first thirty-nine weeks of an individual's claim. Claimants currently receive benefits at a rate of 75 per cent for this time period; they will now receive 80 per cent. Mr. Speaker, I want to emphasize that this is the beginning of our response to this report. This will not result in any increase in the 1998 employer assessment rates.

In being more responsive to the needs of all its stakeholders, the Workers' Compensation Commission has been actively undertaking measures to improve the quality of its services. As part of this, the Commission has developed a position paper and action items to provide Quality Service Initiatives to its clients. Some of these include Customer Service training which will be developed and delivered to all new staff hired at the Commission. To solicit further the views of stakeholders, i.e. workers and employers, the Commission will undertake to survey a sample of clients to receive feedback and modify its services where necessary and I want to comment, here today, the Commission and its staff for recognizing and responding to the needs of clients in such a positive way. Mr. Speaker, I believe that these initiatives will go a long way to improving the quality of services by the Commission.

The amendments and initiatives to the Workers' Compensation System, I am announcing here today, are largely a result of feedback from clients. I believe this direction represents a significant step forward in the system of Workers' Compensation for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Government, Mr Speaker, is committed to dealing with the response in a timely fashion.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, if I were the Minister of Environment and Labour today, having received this report and the recommendations contained in it, some seven months later, here is the statement I would be announcing. I would be standing in the House today announcing that I've put in place a system where deeming, which is now being used to deem people off the system, is now stopped. That where people who are deemed qualified -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Where people who are deemed qualified of performing another job within society that they meet all the medical requirements, educational requirements, and physical requirements. Number one, Mr. Speaker. That is part of the statement I would be making today that this minister hasn't.

Number two. I would be standing in this House, and included in my statement as the minister I would be saying that specialists' reports will no longer be overruled, will no longer be overturned, by general practitioners at the Workers' Compensation Commission.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Will no longer be overruled or overturned by occupational therapists, and will no longer be overturned by case managers with no qualifications, Mr. Speaker, to do so.

Thirdly, if I were making this statement today I would be standing in this House saying clearly and loudly that the recommendations contained in this report are a condemnation of the system that now exists. I would move swiftly to appoint a new board of directors to restore some confidence in the system so that those people who should be benefiting by this system do not become injured workers of the Workers' Compensation system. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm shocked to hear that the Minister of Environment and Labour has come into this House six or seven months after this May 1997 report and has only the ability to tell this House that one-half of one of the ninety-four recommendations is this government prepared to deal with today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Shame, shame!

MR. HARRIS: The committee interviewed and considered all of the recommendations of all of the stakeholders. They have set out in the back all of the considerations, all of the arguments. The minister has had six months to review all of this, and yet we don't see anything but partly returning some of the benefits back to what they were in 1990. In 1990, Mr. Speaker, 90 per cent of net income is what workers got. They reduced it to 75 per cent. We are now going back to 80 per cent for the first thirty-nine weeks. What about the rest? What about the restoration of the rest of the benefit level?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, there are some very serious problems identified in this report. They said: A glaring need existed to have employers involved in rehabilitation and assist employees to return to work. They said: There has been a quarter of a century of employer apathy. That has to be fixed, Mr. Speaker. They also say that they are convinced -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

MR. HARRIS: - that never in the history of this Province has there been a greater need to emphasize safety -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: - as the first line of defence against preventable -

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: - accidents and Workers' Compensation's cost. By leave, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Just to finish my thought, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: This is a very serious matter. The last time out, costs were identified as the problem and reducing benefits was identified as the solution. This commission has identified safety as a serious problem, employer neglect in returning people to work as a serious problem. These problems can be fixed, and the financial side will be fixed as a result. I ask the minister to move swiftly, not to wait till next May or June, a year later.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I just want to draw the attention to visitors to the gallery that we always welcome visitors here, and members I'm sure are delighted that we have visitors in the gallery. I just want to say that they are not allowed to take part in the debate here by showing approval or disapproval of anything that proceeds on the floor of the House, and by applauding or any disorder of any other nature. I ask them to respect that long-standing parliamentary tradition.

 

Oral Questions

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions today are to the Minister of Health. I ask the minister would she stand in her place and withdraw the statement she made yesterday in the House, and outside the House to the press, that I opposed the allocation of money for health care to pay for cardiovascular surgery -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: - a statement that she knows to be false. Will she withdraw it?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I believe the hon. member's question was out of order. It might have been a point of order, but I don't think that question is in order. Questions ought to be of an urgent nature. Questions must be brief. "It must be a question, not an expression of an opinion, representation, argumentation, nor debate." I am referring to Beauchesne, paragraph 409.

"The question ought to seek information and, therefore, cannot be based upon a hypothesis, cannot seek an opinion, either legal or otherwise, and must not suggest its own answer, be argumentative or make representations."

I believe that question was probably out of order.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to ask the minister, is she trying to deflect attention away from her own incompetence as Minister of Health by making false and malicious statements about other members of the House of Assembly?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Again, the hon. member cannot make these representations in the House. His statements are unparliamentary and I ask him to withdraw them.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I withdraw that. I did not intend, certainly, to make any unparliamentary statement.

Yesterday, on CBC Here & Now, the minister deliberately tried to put a spin on the protest of Mr. Head at St. Clare's Hospital on Monday. She tried to create an impression with the press and with the public that the protest was self-serving and that he was only interested in getting himself bumped up on the heart surgery list.

Anyone who saw and heard Mr. Head's protest knows nothing could be further from the truth. The minister's actions were despicable, and everyone in this Province was shocked and dismayed when they heard her. I ask her: Minister, do you have any standards of decency?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Again, the hon. member is out of order and I ask him to withdraw his statement.

PREMIER TOBIN: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier, on a point of order.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I have to ask the Speaker to provide for the rules of relevancy in the House. The Leader of the Opposition has now, three times in a row, not put a question to a minister about her responsibilities to discharge the role and the services of the Department of Health, but rather has three times - when the Leader of the Opposition knows full well it is contrary to the rules - hurled insults across the floor.

I would ask the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw those insults, and I would ask the Speaker to ensure that the rules of relevancy are followed in Question Period.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

To that point of order that the hon. the Premier has raised, I just want to remind hon. members that Question Period is a time for putting questions to the government, that it ought to be a question, that it should not be comments. The preamble should not be inflammatory, and the hon. member should get to his question.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I believe the hon. leader withdrew the comments he had made.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

I want to ask the minister if she agreed that Mr. Head was trying to make a case to shorten the waiting list on surgery rather than making an effort to move him up on the wait list for surgery.

MR. SPEAKER: Again, the questions ought not to seek opinions from the ministers. The question should seek information. Again, I refer hon. members to Beauchesne, paragraph 409 (3): "The question ought to seek information and, therefore... cannot seek an opinion, either legal or otherwise, and must not suggest its own answer, be argumentative or make representations."

Again, I believe the hon. member's question is out of order. I rule that the question is out of order.

The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday, just prior to Question Period expiring, I was dealing with the Minister of Environment and Labour with respect to the Workers' Compensation Commission's notion of `deeming'. I did not get a chance yesterday, so I would like to follow up with a question.

In the Statutory Review Committee's report, the notion of deeming, the committee said, dealt with - the original intent of deeming was to get uncooperative injured workers off the system who were capable of doing a job.

Obviously, the Statutory Review report went on to say, that intent has been changed. Has the minister had any discussions with the Workers' Compensation Commission with respect to deeming? Can he inform the House what those discussions were? And can he tell the House today that the notion of deeming as it now exists, or the intent, as it now exists at Workers' Compensation, will be abolished and that a new system will be put in place that will deal with clearly, the physical requirements of injured workers, their education ability to perform the job that they are deemed for and based upon sound advice. Can the minister inform the House of that today, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour.

MR LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If the hon. member was listening, I think yesterday, when he asked me the question, I told him that I met with the Workers' Compensation Board of Directors for eight hours and one of the things that I brought to their attention was `deeming'. The way it is done now, I consider it to be unacceptable, and I told him so. I also told them to strike a committee to look at the whole process of deeming. This week, when I met with Elaine Price, of the Federation of Labour, I made a commitment to her that we would strike a committee, that we would look at deeming, as I had said to Workers' Compensation, and we would deal with the issue.

There is no doubt in my mind and in the members' minds opposite, that deeming is a problem. For every injured worker sitting in the gallery, it is a problem. We will deal with it. We will set up a committee to see what is the best way to bring it all about.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Kilbride, a supplementary.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I did not get that answer yesterday, but I would like to inform the minister that he has already set up a committee; it is called a Statuary Review Committee.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: The reality is Minister, that it is clear, you have the authority to act, all I am asking today it that you act.

Let me ask the minister another question. In his eight-hour meeting with the Workers' Compensation Review Division, did he seek a commitment or did he tell the Commission that no longer medical specialists reports will be overruled by case managers, will be overruled based upon a three- or four-hour assessment by an occupational therapist and that the rule of the day, when it comes to an injury that an injured worker has, that the rule, fundamentally, will be the report by the specialists and not by a system that is trying to get injured workers off it?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour.

MR LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, I can say to the hon. member that we did discuss it and it will be a part of the recommendations that we will bring forth to the House in the spring - or in the fall sitting. I make a commitment to you that we will do that. We will look at all aspects, every recommendation that is there.

I recognize as a minister - and I do not think anybody in the House has a monopoly on compassion; anybody has a monopoly on pity for the workers. We recognize that. As a minister, I certainly do. I have told the people that I have met, and I make a commitment to them, that we will look at every recommendation and at the end of the day we will do what is best for the worker and to maintain the integrity of the system.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Kilbride, a supplementary.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister, this is a serious issue. I understand and I fully support the notion that the integrity of the system from a sound financial footing must be maintained or there will not be a workers' compensation system or there will not be benefits for injured workers; that is fundamental, I do not think anybody would disagree. I also agree with the minister when he says that nobody has a monopoly on compassion or in dealing with this issue. Clearly, what I am trying to get from the minister and from government is a time line, an action line.

I would like to ask the minister this question: Seventy-five per cent to eighty per cent of the recommendations contained in this report can be handled internally, Minister, do not require legislative changes to be brought before this House. With respect to injured workers who are affected by the decisions being now taken by the Workers' Compensation Commission, can the minister say that between now and next Spring, he, as minister, will commit that Workers' Compensation will move forward on the recommendations that do not need the legislative stamp of approval and implement them with all speed? Can he commit to that today?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour.

MR LANGDON: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will commit to that. In fact, I will go back to the department with these recommendations; I will bring it to Cabinet and ask to have it fast-tracked so that we can have it implemented.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions this afternoon are for the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

Considering the fact that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, through our criminal justice system, responds to many criminal offences by punishing offenders through incarceration, which tends to be very expensive and ineffective and ignores the victim and the community harmed by crime; and considering that only a very small percentage of corrections spending goes to victims' services, support and programs; and further considering that the criminal justice system in this Province ignores the basic needs of victims by denying them a voice in the court process and criminal proceedings and does not provide for compensation for losses or opportunities for alternative dispute resolution, is the minister proposing any substantial reforms or changes to the current system to enhance the role and provide greater support for victims in the criminal justice process?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I am sure I would not be allowed the time that I would require to deal with the issue that the hon. member raised, because he has raised some very important issues.

First he talks about incarceration in this Province. I want to tell the hon. member that some years ago, not that many years ago, we had an occupancy rate in our correction centres, sometimes in excess of 100 per cent. We ended up having double bunking in some of our institutions. In the cells, which were eight-by-ten, we actually used to have two people. So at times we were in excess of 100 per cent. Today, the occupancy rate is in the vicinity of 80 per cent. In the last few years we have been able to actually close an institution in Stephenville. It looks like in the near future we are going to be able to close another centre in Bishop's Falls. Now, we are looking for an alternate use for it. That is not happening, Mr. Speaker, because crime is going down to any great extent - crime is declining in some areas - but it is happening because we are getting into other methods of sentencing. The judges, quite often, because of recent changes to the Criminal Code, can sentence to community service. We have a process whereby people are released from prison on a bracelet where they are supervised, Mr. Speaker, and in other places where they get temporary absences. So in our reform system in this Province, I believe we are probably one of the most advanced in all of Canada. So many of the issues the hon. member raised have been dealt with and are in the process of being dealt with.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister that the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador is spending more on incarceration per offender than any other province in Canada. Considering, Mr. Speaker, that we out-spend our neighbours in Nova Scotia on incarceration, even though our population is half theirs and our crime rate considerably lower, and further considering that we spend only 12 per cent of our corrections budget on community corrections, like offender work programs and probation, a far less expensive and more effective way to deal with non-violent offenders -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary. I ask him to get to his question.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Is the minister planning to limit our dependence on incarceration and expand community corrections to address these deficiencies?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, it is so easy for people to miss the big picture. There are people in this Province and in this country who would bring back capital punishment and who would be very free with capital punishment, very right wing, and would make sure that no matter what the crime, then the perpetrator would be punished beyond all reasonable extreme. That is one extreme.

There is another extreme, Mr. Speaker, in this country which would see all offenders allowed to go free - no such thing as tying the offence to any concept of punishment or any concept of rehabilitation. These are the two extremes. The role of government is to try to strike a balance between these two extremes, and I believe I can quite truthfully say to the House today that we, in this Province, are indeed striking that balance. As I explained in the question before you got to the supplementary, we have brought incarceration down significantly. We have already closed one prison. We have reached the stage where we no longer need a prison which is in Central Newfoundland. The occupancy rate in our prisons today is around 80 per cent. Just three years ago, it was in excess of 100 per cent. So we are making tremendous strides.

Now, the hon. member can get up and pick certain figures and make points and try to score political points on it but the reality is, Mr. Speaker, we are making tremendous strides. As a matter of fact, we have had representation from other provinces asking us for advice on implementing their system where you put people out on electronic monitoring. We are the most advanced province in all of Canada. We are advising other provinces how to -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to now conclude his answer.

MR. DECKER: - implement that electronic monitoring.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Over a year ago the federal government passed legislation that changed sentencing guidelines and allowed for the use of various alternative measures in the criminal justice system, such as victim-offender mediation. I refer Minister, specifically to Bill C-41. Where does this ministry stand on the use of mediation as a formal alternative sanction in our criminal justice system?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will also know that Bill C-41 gave the judges the authority to sentence to community service or whatever. It did not give the Minister of Justice, did not give the political process, nor would I want it, Mr. Speaker.

I believe it is indeed an excellent route to follow. Mediation is being used across the country. It is beginning to be used in this Province. I've had several examples brought to my attention just recently where mediation was used. I certainly do think that in the future you will see more and more mediation. Where do I stand? Where do we stand (inaudible)? We stand solid behind it because it is an excellent concept and I think it is the way of the future. That doesn't mean that every time there is an offence committed it will be resolved by mediation, but it does mean that more of the offences which are being committed will indeed be addressed by mediation. It is a good way to go, and I certainly fully support it.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's West.

MS S. OSBORNE: Yes, Mr. Speaker. My questions today are for the Minister of Human Resources and Employment. Last week I asked the minister to give more consideration in clawing back social assistance from recipients with student loans since her policy could leave some families with less than $50 a month until after Christmas. The minister said the policy affects only a small portion of recipients. I ask the minister: If the number involved is so small, how little will it really cost the department to give them a few extra months to repay the overpayments? Why is she playing Grinch this Christmas and leaving single-parent students with too little to properly care for their children?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources and Employment.

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, for the information of the member, as I indicated last week my department is working with individuals who are in this situation on a case-by-case basis, and as best we can we are working out arrangements to try and accommodate their needs so that they will be able to continue their studies and comply with the policy in question.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. John's West.

MS S. OSBORNE: The minister has had time since Friday to check the numbers and tell us exactly how much money is involved. I ask her here to table that information now. Since these single-parent students are prepared to pay back the money, and probably wouldn't have spent it in the first place if the lines of communication with the department hadn't broken down, why is the minister being so heartless when she has the power to tell her officials to give these people a few extra months? In terms of dealing with them one on one, you are tying up your staff. Why don't you just make a carte blanche rule and deal with them all at once?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources and Employment.

MS BETTNEY: Yes, Mr. Speaker. With respect to the specific amount of the money in question, I would have to say that the amount of money in question varies on a day-to-day basis depending on the arrangements that we work out with each one of our individual clients.

If the member opposite takes issue with the fact that I am expending staff resources in trying to support our clients and work out individualized arrangements, I have some difficulty with that. I think that is a very legitimate response to the issue we are dealing with here. My staff are trying to work individually with the people in question. As we speak we are meeting with clients and looking at their individual circumstances, and determining where possible we can make alternate arrangements and spread out a pay back schedule. That work will continue over the next number of weeks until all of the cases in question have been dealt with.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. John's West.

MS S. OSBORNE: These students are not trying to get out of repaying the money, and a decision to treat these situations as overpayments won't bankrupt the government. Treating them individually, what you are doing is clawing them back over the rest of the semester. That is two months, November and December, collecting as high as $400 and $500 per month from single parents.

Why won't the minister recognize that it will cause far less hardship on the government to change its policy than it will cause hardship for single-parent families if you leave the policy as it is now and, in light of last Thursday's being National Day of the Child, will the minister do more than wear a blue ribbon by showing some leniency to these individuals and families, not make them victims, but allow them to repay the money over a longer period of time?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources and Employment.

MS BETTNEY: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Again, the member fails to recognize that when I speak to the individualized arrangements that we are trying to make with the clients in this circumstance, what we are very much trying to do, is to work individually, deal with the circumstances that each person presents and try to come to some accommodation on this, and this is the only appropriate way to deal with these cases that are remaining. Every effort is being made - I repeat again, every effort is being made to support the parents who are in this situation who are receiving social assistance or were receiving student aid and social assistance to ensure that they can continue with their studies and receive the amount of support that they need to finish their terms. We are working on that, we are working diligently on it and we will be proceeding in that manner.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's West, a supplementary.

MS S. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, I say to the minister: the people who are calling your department must be quite different from the ones who are calling my office. The ones who are calling my office, are single parents and also married parents who have had loans, who have tried to improve their lot in life, now find themselves with this money being clawed back before Christmas, before they can remain on social assistance -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary.

MS S. OSBORNE: - and I ask the minister again: Will she please, relinquish this order that she has now, and treat the payments that they have had as overpayments and not claw it back all at once before Christmas?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources and Employment.

MS BETTNEY: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

To just refresh some of the information with respect to this: The policy required that clients would return to the department the shelter component by thirty days within the time that they had received their student aid. We are now proceeding to deal with cases where clients did not comply with the policy to return the shelter component. In cases where people did not have the proper information in order to comply, we are dealing on an individual basis to work out satisfactory arrangements.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's South.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Premier and regard interprovincial trade.

In recent conversations with many of the members of the Food Processors Association of Newfoundland, I have been told that part of the reason they are unable to secure contracts with government institution such as hospitals, is because large, national firms once receiving the government tenders then sub-contract for the supply of products. If a local supplier such as Sunnyland Juice cannot supply on a national basis, they are not even considered for our own institutions here provincially. Local companies get more co-operation from national chain stores such as Sobeys or Dominion than they do from our own provincial government, a government, that by the way, boasts the `Manufactured Right Here' slogan I might add.

Will the Premier consider putting in the procurement packages, as they come up for renewal, specifications that will guarantee local manufacturers and producers the ability to competitively bid for the supply of the products for government institutions?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to share with the hon. member the knowledge that there are no conflicts over here, there is just an abundance of competence, and we can provide an answer to a particular question from one of several departments.

I have had some experience, Mr. Speaker, with respect to the issue that was raised by the hon. member, and he is not quite factual in terms of some of the things he presented.

Let me say first of all that in terms of broad principle we would like to see everything that is consumed in the Province be something that, if possible, is manufactured in the Province. That is a principle that we would like to be able to see carried out generally throughout the Province.

In terms of policy, we have to recognize realities as well. There are three realities that have to be factored in when any supplier is given the responsibility, by virtue of a tender or an award, to provide services or goods to public institutions such as hospitals.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MATTHEWS: First of all, they have to be able to provide the product in a timely fashion. They have to have quality, they have to have service capability, and they have to have price. These are the three principles that must apply in any area.

Mr. Speaker, we can become very parochial and say nothing gets consumed in Newfoundland that is not made in Newfoundland if it is otherwise made here. We can say that no orange juice can be consumed in our public institutions if it is not made here; but I also have to say to the hon. member that if we are going to take that approach then we have to think about the 10,000 products -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MATTHEWS: - that are made in Newfoundland and that are exported.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to finish his answer quickly.

MR. MATTHEWS: We want to ensure that Terra Nova Shoes can send their boots across the border. We want to ensure that the people in Point Leamington can sell their gloves across the border. We want to make sure that Brookfield Ice Cream can continue to supply ice cream to the SkyDome -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to finish his answer quickly.

MR. MATTHEWS: - and we want to make sure that our value-added fishery products can get to markets elsewhere.

We want to also be able to play by rules that are national and international, to give our own manufacturers good and fair advantage.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to take his seat.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for St. John's South, a supplementary.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Something is wrong when a national catering company that wins a Newfoundland Government contract then subcontracts to national firms instead of purchasing products manufactured right here in Newfoundland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. OSBORNE: Will the Premier put in place, within government tendering packages, clauses that will ensure that subcontractors supplying to Newfoundland Government, such as schools, hospitals and so on, are obliged to give first consideration to local producers at least within the 5 per cent preference level that is now within the Atlantic Procurement Agreement? Will he give government companies the edge for a change?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the way the Public Tender Act works is that the act provides for a competitive bidding process in which the lowest priced product is awarded the public tender for our government-paid-for service.

What the member opposite is suggesting is that there be an amendment, I believe, or some kind of amendment, to the Public Tender Act to give some consideration in some circumstances, or perhaps in all circumstances, to locally produced services or locally manufactured products.

I would say to the Leader of the Opposition - indeed I would say to the member and to his Party - if that is a serious, serious representation, and it may well be, being made by the Party opposite, we are prepared to consider whatever proposal they are prepared to put on the Table of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for St. John's South, one quick supplementary.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Why is it that local manufacturers, such as Sunnyland Juice, are considered high enough in quality to have Sobeys put their own label on the product; yet the government will not ensure that those products can competitively bid within -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to get to his question quickly.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Will the Premier ensure that any contracts that are tendered on for institutions such as hospitals, schools and so on, that through the Atlantic Procurement Package the 5 per cent leverage that is supposed to be given to Newfoundland companies will be given to Newfoundland companies, and that those companies that win those tenders be asked to consider Newfoundland companies first?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Before I recognize the Premier, I just want to say that it is Wednesday and it is Private Members Day. We should now be moving to Orders of the Day, which we will have do unless we have leave.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave, okay.

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I think the member is raising an interesting question. The reality is everybody wants to see our locally produced products be as successful as possible, but it is as equally a reality and all members of this House know it, that we have a Public Tender Act and the Public Tender Act requires in law -

AN HON. MEMBER: When did you find that out?

PREMIER TOBIN: The Public Tenders Act requires - this is a serious question, I believe raised by a serious member and it deserves a thoughtful response and I believe that his own leader should pay some attention to the response.

What is being proposed here in essence, any way you cut it, is that Newfoundland and Labrador consider, in effect, amendments to the Public Tender Act to allow for some preference in whatever circumstances might be contemplated for locally produced goods or services. That at the end of the day, is what is being proposed.

Now, that is a serious public policy issue. I say to the party opposite, and I think it deserves some consideration and this government would be open to some suggestions from members opposite about potential amendments to the Public Tender Act.

Let me go further, Mr. Speaker, I believe for example, there is something fundamentally wrong today in this Province when workers from Newfoundland and Labrador or companies cannot work in the province of Quebec, but yet workers from the province of Quebec, by way of example, and companies work in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I would purpose that there be exactly reciprocal treatment for workers on both sides of the border or we put an end to the free entry of workers and contractors in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and that is another reason we need to look at the Public Tender Act and I await the members recommendations as to how we can make changes.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

It is now 3:03 p.m.; we are beyond the 3:00 p.m. period. We now move to Orders of the Day.

 

Orders of the Day

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health.

MS J. M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege.

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of privilege, the hon. the Minister of Health.

MS J. M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, based on the statement made today by the Leader of the Opposition during Question Period - while I do not have Hansard here - I am devastated and very disturbed that the Leader of the Opposition gave the clear impression that I, as Minister of Health, was in some way self-serving, and implied that I accused a patient of staging an incident to get attention. Mr. Speaker, this is untrue, unfair and vicious. The Leader of the Opposition should ask the media to see the full two interviews that I did on this very serious issue. I hereby give notice that as soon as I have had an opportunity to fully review Hansard, I would like to raise a point of privilege on this very serious accusation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is the hon. member on a point of order?

MR. E. BYRNE: No, Mr. Speaker, I am asking leave of the House. I spoke to the Premier on the matter and he has indicated his support for it. It being Private Members' Day and 3:00 p.m., we have not had the opportunity to move to petitions, but I would like to present a petition.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you to the Premier and the government for allowing the opportunity beyond the rules of the House at the moment to operate under leave.

I stand today to present a petition to the House of Assembly.

To the hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland in legislative session convened, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador: We, the undersigned, urge the government to implement the recommendations of the Statutory Review Committee and Workers' Compensation immediately, and as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, the boxes of information here attached to the petition are some 6,270 letters to members of the House of Assembly. I will read for the record. It is an open letter to MHAs but they have been categorized by district so that each member in the House can see for themselves the situation that injured workers are facing, and that people, injured workers and their families, are requesting members to take seriously the recommendations contained in this report.

Now, Mr. Speaker, for the record, I want to say that there are, as of today, I believe, 3,671 injured workers on the system. What we have here is a letter signed by over 6,200 individuals of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador who are either injured workers or family or friends of injured workers who have been negatively impacted upon by the system.

I will just read for the record, Mr. Speaker, that `... as a friend and supporter of the Newfoundland and Labrador Injured Workers' Association, I am writing to you, my member of the House of Assembly to express my outrage and dissatisfaction with the present system of Workers' Compensation. Injured workers have been devastated by the impact the Workers' Compensation Commission has inflicted upon them and their families. It is imperative that this system be modified to better assist injured workers, which was the original intent when first introduced in 1951. The Workers' Compensation Statutory Review Committee has asked for sweeping changes in their report to government. This report is scheduled to be debated in the House of Assembly during the fall session. As my MHA, I trust that when this report is presented in the House for debate and a vote of approval, that you will support the injured workers from your district. I thank you in advance for supporting the injured workers of Newfoundland and Labrador in their pursuit for an improved quality of life than they presently have under the existing system of compensation. They have suffered an injustice for many years. It is time to confer upon them the dignity they deserve and a much, much improved workers' compensation system.'

Mr. Speaker, I will not take up any more time of the House to debate the issue. We have talked about it in Question Period. There has been a Ministerial Statement. I think it is clear, from the response that is here. The Pages will distributing individually to each member, and there is a listing here, as well, for individual members to show how many individual letters they have from their districts, that they take seriously the concerns that have been articulated and when legislation to this House comes for approval that members move expeditiously and swiftly to approve it and also to support the minister if he needs support and to push the minister if he needs a push, to ensure that the recommendations that do not require legislative changes are implemented quickly.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to speak briefly in support of the comments of the Member for Kilbride on the Workers' Compensation Statutory Review. There has been a very comprehensive report prepared for the government and for the minister. The detail included in this, not only of the recommendations but also of the position that each particular representative on the board took, the considerations of all the various so-called stakeholders, have been taken into consideration and a comprehensive report presented.

What is pretty clear is that the changes that were made after the 1991 statutory review were done for financial reasons. It was stated in the report that the substantial savings that were obtained - a $30 million operating loss has been eliminated, a $60 million decrease in the unfunded liability since the changes that were made in 1992 - most of these economic benefits, most of the financial improvements, have been achieved by cutting the initial benefit level from 90 per cent to 75 per cent of net income, longer term benefits from 90 per cent to 80 per cent, and by employing a deeming process designed to reduce benefit pay-outs to minimum levels, by reducing rehabilitation initiatives, and by imposing an additional $13 million levy.

It is pretty clear, aside from the additional levy, that the savings that have been attained have been by decreasing the amount of support that injured workers receive from the system. That has devastated families, it has treated injured workers as if they were, somehow or other, pariahs on the system. In fact, they are victims of an industrial system that does not place enough emphasis on safety, does not require employers to get out of their quarter-century of apathy on ensuring that workers return to jobs. There is no incentive or initiative for employers to bring people back to work. This statutory report says that employers, once they get on the Workers' Compensation system, turn their back on the workers, treat them as if they are no longer interested in their future, no longer interested in having them as employees and making money on them.

This is a very serious matter. In 1991 I was here when the last statutory report came in. The previous government moved swiftly to reduce benefits. It was breathtaking, the speed at which they moved to reduce the benefits. The current Minister of Education was in charge at the time. He hammered these things through the House, amidst considerable opposition, I might say, but they were changed very quickly. The minister has had this report since last May. I realize he is only a new minister, he only became minister in August, but he is a very intelligent man, a quick study, I understand. He understands things very quickly, can follow the arguments very well, and is quite sympathetic to the needs of injured workers. I urge the members of the Cabinet and government to listen to him, and to move speedily to make whatever changes can be made now without legislation. If there is any legislation coming before this House to improve the lot of injured workers, to place greater emphasis on safety as a means of reducing industrial carnage, they will be passed swiftly by this side of the House. I am sure we will not waste any time in debating them, we will pass them immediately.

It is a very important matter. There are grave concerns raised in this report. I am sorry to hear that the minister is not moving faster on them, as fast as the government moved five years ago when they saw a way to make some savings in the system at the expense of injured workers. The minister will have whatever support that is needed from this side of the House, and not only that, will be sure to hear from this side of the House on an ongoing basis until these changes are implemented.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour.

MR LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, I would like to thank the Injured Workers' Association and Mr. Haynes for doing such a good job in organizing here and presenting the brief and so on. I think they have to be commended for that. I met with him earlier, just after becoming minister, and was impressed with his sincerity and his concern for injured workers, and I give him credit for that. It is very important.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: I want to assure the workers who are in the gallery here today that I have a commitment from the Cabinet, from the Premier in particular, saying that we will fast-track many of the recommendations that are in the report. I look forward in the next number of weeks to doing that.

The other recommendations there that are more difficult, and the extenuating circumstances involved with them, will take a little longer to do. But I want to be expeditious in what we do, and at the end of the day, I want to assure the workers and this House, that whatever I do will be with the interests of the workers in mind to alleviate any of the anguish and sorrow that they would have, but yet also to bear in mind, as I said earlier, that we must maintain the integrity of the plan. I am sure, at the end of the day, the employers and workers who are represented here will continue to do a good job.

Before I sit down, Mr. Speaker, I would like also to mention the fact that the people who sit on the Board of Directors of the Workers' Compensation Commission are people who are sent there by union representatives and workers and by employers, and I have tremendous faith in people like Allan Carter from NAPE, Eileen Humphries from the Nurses' Union, and Mr. Kennedy from the workers' group, who serve diligently on this board. I am sure that their interests, when they go to the board, are for the integrity of the plan, but also to make sure that the conditions of the injured workers are looked after and life made as pleasant as possible in spite of the injuries that have occurred.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

Orders of the Day

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The purpose of this resolution today is to bring immediate attention to the inadequacy and the inefficiency of the Canada Student Loan Program in terms of meeting the practical, functional and financial needs of students pursuing a post-secondary education in the `90s and beyond; and secondly to emphasize and illustrate and demonstrate another major problem, probably the nation's most pressing problem, Canada's most pressing problem, namely, student indebtedness. As a matter of fact, there are those who say that the level of student debt in Canada appears to be without parallel anywhere in the world.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, a major purpose of this resolution is to convince and request the prompt action of both governments, federal and provincial, to initiate major reform to the Canadian Student Loan Program, with particular emphasis towards developing measures that will deal effectively and efficiently with student indebtedness.

To ensure immediate action in respect of correcting and improving the Canada Student Loan Program, another important aspect of this resolution, another request, was to ask both levels of government to ensure that it is given a high priority on the agenda of the upcoming First Ministers' Conference which will take place in early December.

Mr. Speaker, to get this matter to the national level, to get this matter to the Table of First Ministers, will take a little more than this resolution, as all hon. members are aware, although the passage of this resolution will be very important and very significant. To get this resolution to the national level, to get this resolution on the national agenda, to get this resolution on the Table of the First Ministers' Conference, is going to take the co-operation, the determination, and the political will of this government and the Premier.

I have been reasonably encouraged and impressed with the efforts of the government and particularly with the Premier in his efforts to make sure that this issue is brought before the national government. I know that in the past few months, he spared no effort in terms of giving this issue the kind of debate and discussion that it deserves, but we will be counting on him and his government to ensure that this resolution gets the results and the action which is implicit in the resolution.

The passage of this resolution today, given the collective support of the House, will give the resolution, I believe, the further impetus and expediency to our government to ensure that action is taken on this matter immediately, and the debate generated will result, I am sure, not only in identifying the problems, the weaknesses and the inadequacies of the Canada Student Loan Program, but I am sure that the debate will result in members giving ideas, suggestions and principles which will guide the government and the senior officials whose job it will be to further refine, develop, enhance and improve the present Canada Student Loan Program and to develop a program which will ensure fairness, equity and opportunity for all Canadians, regardless of their economic backgrounds to pursue a post-secondary education.

I point out that the Canada Student Loan plan is the only loan program which guarantees Canadians the opportunity to undertake studies in the province of their choice and, as such, can make a vital contribution to national unity and nation-building.

It is axiomatic and a truism to state in Canada that financial and economic investments in education are an investment in the future; that education and formal training are prerequisites to employment.

The research and study have demonstrated, unequivocally, the relationship between educational attainment and unemployment. The research is overwhelming supporting the fact that the higher the level of education, the higher generally is the rate of employment and the quality of employment.

Hence, I think the rationale has long been established in Canada for publicly supporting, supporting financially, education throughout the nation and particularly post-secondary education.

Believing in the value of education, that is why the Federal Government moved in the mid 1960s to set up a Canada Student Loan Program. Mr. Speaker, I do not think I need to go through the history; everybody is familiar with the Canada loan program.

Basically, the program was set up to ensure accessibility to education for all Canadians. The program was jointly sponsored by the Federal Government and the Provincial Government, with the Federal Government absorbing sixty per cent of the loans and the Province, forty per cent.

Basically, the Canada Student Loan Program is a loan program, straightforward, a loan program, whereas in the provinces, they have made it a combination of loans and grants and taxed with remission schemes as we have in this Province. But it is fair to say that over the years, the Canada Student Loan Program has not kept up with the financial, economic and social needs of the country and, as a result, it has caused great hardship on students, that it is not now achieving the goals and purposes which we envisaged for the Canada Student Loan Program.

What I want to do in my short time this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, is to identify the weaknesses, specifically with respect to two items: 1) The Student Aid itself, the actual money, the loans, and student indebtedness.

In terms of recommending suggestions for future direction, there are plenty of recommendations for both the Federal Government and the Provincial Government to follow. I recommend to all members a presentation by our own Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Students submitted to the government, I think, early Fall - I am not precisely certain of the date but I think it was early Fall and is called: Commonsense, Supporting Post-secondary Education Securing Our Future, and the federation of students makes some very good recommendations but, I also refer hon. members to another presentation and this presentation was made in January of 1997, a discussion paper entitled: The Student Assistant Reform Initiative, which is the effort of seven national organizations involved in post-secondary education.

These are all organizations involved in post-secondary education of some nature. The teachers, students involved in this have come up with a discussion paper making some great recommendations, and I think they could provide the basis of any reform to the Student Loan Program. Although, at the end, after going through some of these, I would like to make a recommendation or two myself. I am a little bit reluctant to do that, it is only to throw it out for discussion, because I believe that any major changes to the program ought to come from the students themselves, and the teachers who are involved, and parents. So, Mr. Speaker, even though I want to make a suggestion or two on my own, I am cognizant of the recommendations and the literature before those who will be required to make changes to the Student Aid Program.

Mr. Speaker, on page 11 in the Newfoundland presentation, it says: it is difficult to decide where to begin when recommending changes to the Canada Student Loan Program since the program's problems are numerous. It goes on to point out, as I have done a little earlier, the break-up of the Canada Student Loan Program with the federal composition of 60 per cent and the provincial composition of 40 per cent; and the report points out, in accessing these loans, in approaching the Student Aid Division, in fact it becomes very confusing. The rules governing each becomes very confusing and sometimes even the administrators are confused by the rules and regulations affecting the governance and the approval of each of these programs, the provincial and the federal. It is their recommendation that the two ought to be combined, that they ought to be harmonized and I certainly concur with that. I think that under the present structure that is certainly the way it should be, that it should be - all for the same purpose and that it ought to be the one - that the two loans ought to be harmonized and the rules fine-tuned to make the administration more simple, to take out any confusion, any irregularities, to fine-tune the rules governing the approval of a student loan. I certainly can concur with that. In addition to that, I think that the student loans themselves must be improved in accordance with the financial conditions of today. The loans must be a reflection of the financial realities -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. LUSH: Well, Mr. Speaker, I did not realize - the fifteen minutes went so fast and I won't abuse the time given to me.

I just want to say that I certainly concur with the harmonization suggested by our own students and I also concur with an increase in the student loans. I also agree with the - and I don't have time to get into that at this point but - initiatives advanced by the seven national organizations, the title of which I have given and I shall give it again for hon. members is the Student Assistance Reform Initiative. They certainly outline some important initiatives there but if I might, Mr. Speaker, just -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. LUSH: If I might, I would just like to advance at this stage my own suggestion, and that is out of the models that I have seen. The one that pleases me most is the income contingency repayment plan, the income contingency loan repayment program. Basically, with that program, its strength is in its payback. Its strength is in dealing with student indebtedness. A particular one is that it advocates that the payback must be related to a student's income and that it should be taken care of by the income tax division. In other words, Revenue Canada. Revenue Canada knows the whereabouts of every student. They know what they are doing. They know what they are working at and when they start work. They know when they are working and they take out a rate in proportion to their rate of pay or their wages and if they are earning larger wages they will take out a higher rate. If they are making lower wages they will take out a lower rate. It is related to income and if there is no employment, which has been a very distinct possibility for students in this economic climate, they make no payment, Mr. Speaker. This would do away with collecting agencies which has become the scourge of students in Canada, in Newfoundland in particular.

Mr. Speaker, I will get a chance to talk about it - in my wrap up of fifteen minutes. I hope that hon. members will come forward with other suggestions in terms of helping the students of this Province deal with the difficulties of financing education and to deal with the difficulties of student debt.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I was first elected in May, 1993, and this is the fifth Private Members' Resolution that I have spoken on dealing with this issue. Four of them I have presented myself, the fifth one, now advanced by the hon. Member for Terra Nova.

Mr. Speaker, I think the record is clear in terms of where this member and this party stands on student indebtedness. I will take some time in a few moments to outline clearly for the record again what we said in 1993, what we said in 1994, what we said in 1995, 1996, and recently in 1997.

Mr. Speaker, the resolution that has been put forward clearly is something this Party not only supports, but has recommended time and time again to government. I want to congratulate the member, because one year ago his point of view on this very important issue was not the same point of view that he is offering and putting forward and advancing today. Even though he has come to the party late, I congratulate him for coming, and I support his resolution wholeheartedly in advancing the cause of indebtedness of students.

The Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce itself nationally has said that the largest single crisis that is going to face the country by the years 2005 to 2010 is this very issue, indebtedness of students. I've said publicly before, and I will say it again, in my years at the post-secondary institution known as Memorial University, when I concluded my academic career there, I came out of that institution with $26,000 worth of student loans, all of it to be paid back. None of it deferred, no grants, et cetera. I still have three and a half years left to pay at a rate of $359 a month. For $26,000, by the time I pay it back, according to the schedule of interest I signed (inaudible) day I will have paid back to the Government of Canada $39,000.

It must be emphasized clearly that when we talk about student loans they are exactly that. They are loans. The grant portions of student loans provincially were eliminated in the 1993 Budget, or 1994 Budget. What we are talking about is loans. If I were to start the same program that I was enrolled in today, conclude five years later, my student loan wouldn't be $26,000. It would be somewhere in the vicinity of $46,000 or $47,000. That is the type of debt load people are experiencing at Memorial University. Post-secondary education is far beyond just Memorial. The type of debt that students are incurring, coming out with no job, no future of employment - there is certainly no forgiveness when it comes to the lending institutions.

As a matter of fact, let me tell you some horror stories that have come to my office from constituents of mine. One student, $39,000 worth of loans, within an eighteen-month period couldn't repay and the banks wanted their money. He couldn't give them any money, he didn't have any money. He was on social services. As a result of that, the banks foreclosed on the loan, for the lack of a better term, they secured the money from the Government of Canada, because the Government of Canada had guaranteed the loan, at which time he was put into a credit agency. To this day he isn't in a position to pay back. What he could pay back amounts to about $50 to $75 a month, because it is based upon his ability to pay, not upon what anybody else believes their ability to pay. There are situations like that, and the member has correctly alluded to them, where students with no employment, no prospect of employment, must be looked at in terms of special or extenuating circumstances. The common saying is that they have fallen through the cracks.

I would just like to read into the record what this Party's position is that was presented two years ago at a conference. One, it calls for this: Harmonization of the federal Canada Student Loan with the provincial Newfoundland student loan to get rid of the confusion now inherent in the separate systems. The member talked about it. We support it. We supported it two years ago, we support it today.

Two: Revisit the recommendations in the student assistance reform initiative released in January, namely, to provide special opportunities, grants to students in need, give deferred grants to graduates in the form of interest relief, create student employment programs, and make student loan interest payments tax deductible.

Three: Design a more adequate student assistance program with a better debt remission component and a tax deduction for loan repayments similar to capital investment tax deductions.

That unto itself makes a tremendous amount of sense. Give students the option to classify themselves as independent. This is clearly an important issue. For those who have no knowledge of the system, who don't understand the system, here is what it means.

For most students going to a post-secondary institution - I will use Memorial - if you are classified as a dependent student, even though the rules are such that you will not receive a full loan, you will not receive full Canada or provincial loans, if your parents make a certain amount of money.

Now, the point is Mr. Speaker, that the ceilings that have been imposed by the systems that say: if your household income is $35,000 then for example you are only eligible for so much or not at all.

These regulations, while the spirit of them I understand, are having the reverse effect of what they were suppose to have. They were supposed to ensure that equity in the system would prevail, that those who needed to get it, would get it and those who did not need it, who could get assistance because they came from a marginal higher level of income from their parents, would not be able to take advantage of the program. Well, that is not happening. It is considerations of numbers of people in the family, household debt is not part of that program. By clearly asking or giving students the opportunity to classify themselves as independent, brings in line, I think, our philosophy as a society.

A student of eighteen years old is allowed to vote, is allowed to drive, at nineteen is allowed to drink, is allowed to pursue any activity within society. Why should they be considered dependent when clearly they are independent thinking individuals? Mr. Speaker, we call for that.

Number five: We are on the record for saying that you should deduct no more then twenty per cent of the pre-study discretionary income from allowable loans.

Number six: We ask and are on the record for saying, increase the weekly living allowance used in calculating discretionary income.

Number seven: Deduct no more than twenty per cent of income earned during the period of study for such things as part-time jobs and bursaries.

There are people who are on co-op programs who end up in Halifax, who end up in Deer Lake, who end up essentially outside of their normal living environment, as a result their living conditions; the amount it costs them to live far exceed what the student loan program takes into consideration.

Number eight: Regularly increase allowances for compulsory fees like tuition and books. So, allowance reflects the costs. Common sense I put forward, Mr. Speaker.

Number nine: Increase the maximum amount of loan limit to better reflect the rising cost of education.

While the Minister of Education himself a couple of weeks ago, publicly mused about the idea with respect to private training institutions where tuition costs are higher and if people cannot afford it, if the student loan program does not allow them to meet basic tuition costs, then maybe they should consider going to the publicly funded institutions.

What he did not say is that the publicly funded institutions, their courses are being stripped, the amount of courses available are somewhat in the vicinity of seventy or eighty per cent less than what they were five years ago.

What he did not say was that the accessibility to education through the public college system within this Province has diminished to such a degree that it has caused a prolific and significant need for the private sector to step up, especially in rural Newfoundland.

So, while the minister can say that, he should have also said that as a result of this dilemma, as a result of this situation that many young people are facing in the Province, that the Province is moving expeditiously to increase the levels of students loans, so that where people are going to private institutions where tuitions are higher, that if they wish to they can take advantage of a loan system by where it will give them the basic necessities, such as the cost of their tuitions, the cost of their books and a living weekly allowance so that they can live at bare minimum levels anyway.

Number ten: We are on the record for saying, our leader made a presentation to the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Students on two separate occasions, last year and this year calling for these measures.

The last one that he talked about was that the program should provide a cost of living subsidy to students whose program of study is not available in their own home town.

Let me say to the hon. member, clearly that this side of the House supports this resolution. It is not unlike the resolutions that we have talked about on four separate occasions that have been put forward by this side of the House. That I might add for the record, Mr. Speaker, were not and I repeat, were not supported by the government of the day.

But I am pleased to stand with him today to say clearly and in a most articulate way, that I support this resolution. That this side of the House and this party supports the resolution and the sooner that we can renegotiate, redefine, reconfigure the student loan system that better reflects the reality of today.

Number one: That provides an opportunity for students to have equal accessibility to post-secondary education, where we can design a system where remission and large portions of remission are allowed so that students do not come out with loans that equal mortgages in many cases, that before they even start their lives they have a mortgage - what can be described only as a mortgage - of $40,000 or $50,000 hanging over their heads, that some more remission be given to them so that component of our society can move forward and deliver us into the next century.

With that I will conclude my remarks and let other hon. members participate in this debate.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port au Port.

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to rise and participate in this debate this afternoon. As a person who for pretty well the whole of his life, I guess, has been involved in the education field, either as a deliverer of the service or a consumer, it is certainly an issue that is near and dear to me and I am pleased to have this opportunity to share for a few moments with the members of this hon. House my views with regard to this very timely topic.

Mr. Speaker, in listening to the previous speakers today I have been reflecting back on my years in education, and going back some considerable years. I remember beginning school on the Port au Port Peninsula, and proceeding through the primary, elementary and high school, and graduating from high school as one of a class of four graduates.

Thinking back to the number of friends of mine who had started the process and were nowhere to be seen some eleven years later always had a strong impression and left me to wonder what had happened along the way to all of the others who had begun this process with me.

Later, as an educator and as an advocate for improvements to the educational services in the area of the Province in which I lived and worked, it also was very clear to me that some of the problems that had been apparent years prior, during my own time in the system, were still very much in evidence.

I think back to the efforts upon which we embarked in the school system in which I worked back in the early eighties, looking at the dropout problem, we were appalled to determine and to realize that in the school system in which I was employed at that time, we had a dropout rate of 70 per cent. That was only a short time ago. We are talking the early eighties. This is not ancient history; this is very recent history.

At that time, in our area of the Province, we tried to in a very real way address the serious concerns and tried to reverse the trend that obviously we all recognized was impacting so negatively on our communities and on the individuals who lived there.

Also, as a volunteer in the community, I had occasion to be fairly heavily involved in economic development, in trying to promote economic development in that area, trying to help people identify and realize ways in which they might make a living. So in that capacity as an educator and as an economic developer, it was pretty obvious that the education and economic development were very closely related. Certainly in our area of the Province, in the area of the Province in which I lived, it was pretty apparent that many of the difficulties we were facing in terms of our struggles to try to develop and grow our economy were in large part impacted by the fact that what we were finding in the area was that large numbers of our people were undereducated.

Mr. Speaker, the reality in the area where I live, and unfortunately still very much the reality, the young people who proceeded through the system and acquired high school graduation, many of them moved on elsewhere. Many of them could not see a reason to remain in the area, and those who did remain behind, in the main, were people who had dropped out of school and, as a result, were restricted in the types of options and career choices which were open to them.

Speaking from my own experience, Mr. Speaker, when I finished high school in the early 1960s and was looking at a career choice - on the Port au Port Peninsula back in the early '60s, when I graduated, there were not a lot of options that I could look to, there were not a lot of fields that I could see, that were open to me. The Student Aid Program at that time was in its very, very early stages, and the only thing available was a grant system, provided by the government of the day, that was intended to attract graduates from the high school program into the teaching program at the University, and I guess, that pretty well shaped the career that I was to pursue.

I know, many of my friends and many of the people I have known over the years, their experience was similar to mine, in that the option was there for them. If they wanted university, the only way they could look at university was to aspire to become a teacher, to avail of the grant program that was made available by the government of the day, and that, Mr. Speaker, I opted to do. And I can say to you and say to this hon. House today, that as I reflect back to the early 1960s, coming from the West Coast of the Province, from a tiny, little community -

MR. H. HODDER: How old are you, at all?

MR. SMITH: How old do you think I am?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SMITH: Indeed I do. But, Mr. Speaker, reflecting back to that time, I still remember travelling to this part of the Province for the first time and arriving here - well, I will date myself in the sense that I arrived here at University the first year that the residence opened. As a matter of fact, I had the privilege of being one of the first residents in Rothmere House, so that is going back a ways.

MR. H. HODDER: Nineteen thirty-four.

MR. SMITH: No, that is your year, `Harvey'.

But, Mr. Speaker, the thing about it is, as I reflect back, and I guess, in the context of what we are debating here today, the one thing that is relevant about it is that, the opportunity that was provided to me at that time, by virtue of the fact that there was a program in place which made it possible for someone coming from a situation who, otherwise would not have been able to consider a career in which university training was a component of it, I appreciate the fact that having Student Aid Programs in place are very, very important.

I also appreciate the fact, Mr. Speaker, that because of these programs that were in place, the fact that I was able to avail of a university education because there was assistance available to me, I would like to feel it shaped, not only the career which I was able to pursue and make a living, but I believe, as an educator, that it has shaped me as a person. And this is the important thing whenever we engage in the education - and the education debate is such, that education is important for education's sake.

Mr. Speaker, in our area of the Province and the area of the Province where I have lived and worked, this is one of the things that we have set out as a goal, to try to create among our people, a learning environment, an environment in which everyone, young and old alike, recognize and believe and subscribe to the view of life-long learning, that education is not something that you begin in Kindergarten or pre-school but is something that you engage in the whole of your life; and in order to do that, you have to accept the principle that education should be accessible to all of our citizens at every stage of their development.

We are very fortunate in this country to have available at the primary, elementary and secondary level, free education, and the difficulty for our young graduates first appears when they have to look to the post-secondary.

There is no question, Mr. Speaker, that in recent years the costs associated with this have been somewhat staggering. I have three children who have gone through the program, so I can relate to the recent situation as well. Because I know the reality of their having to deal with student aid and student loans, and trying to come to grips with dealing with the debt load with which they are faced after their program has been completed.

I mentioned earlier that I have been around for a while. There are other members in this House as well, I am sure, who could relate, too, if they would dare to admit, but I was around in the days when the government of the day not only announced free tuition, but I can remember being at the meeting where the Premier of the day, surrounded by his Cabinet, announced: Not only will we have free tuition, but you are going to get a salary of $100 a month. I mean, the grand sum of $100 a month - I can tell you, that news was greeted with astounding applause. All of the students at the University of the day just could not believe their good fortune.

Unfortunately, it was short-lived. I do not know how long - I guess I availed of it for a couple of years. It did not last very long before - I am not sure, because I did not continue there. It may have been - the hon. member opposite is indicating it might have been three years. I do not know because I was not in attendance for three continuous years. It may have been there for the third year. I was one of these people who, after a couple of years, had to go out and start trying to earn a living, trying to scrape together a few more dollars so I could come back in and continue my training.

We do have precedents. I heard one of the members opposite make reference earlier this afternoon to a suggestion that has been made in recent days about the idea of making post-secondary education totally free and accessible to all young people. That is certainly laudable. I think it is something that no one, in principle, would have any difficulty subscribing to. I guess we recognize the reality, as well, that at this point in time it may not be the type of program that we can embark upon.

Certainly, I think we have to commit ourselves to making sure that not only is the support to our students maintained at an acceptable level, so that post-secondary education continues to be accessible to all of them; we also have to do it and complete it in the context that when these young people do leave the post-secondary institutions that the debt load they are saddled with is not such that their future success in life is, in fact, negatively impacted upon.

I do not think we can allow that to happen. I am always concerned when I read reports and hear of instances where students are declaring personal bankruptcy. I think that is really tragic. I think it is tragic when that fate befalls anyone. I think it is even more tragic when it is a course of action that a young person, very early on in their life, feels that they have no choice but to opt for this because the situation in which they find themselves is such that it is not possible for them to continue without placing undue hardship on themselves and on their families.

I feel strongly that this Province and this country must commit themselves to continuing to make education a priority. It must be our goal that all of our citizens will be able to achieve all of their potential, that opportunities will continue to exist and be available to people who want to pursue careers in any number of fields. As difficult as it may be, and confronted with the problems that are indeed real, and I certainly sympathize with the students who are confronted with this today, I also recognize that - at the beginning I reflected back on my early years in entering the post-secondary education system.

I look at my own children. In the course of that number of years, which in an historical perspective are not that long or not that great, we have seen significant changes in this Province. Right now, young graduates from the school that I graduated from many years ago, young students coming out of that school now, high school graduates, unlike myself, now can aspire to any of the careers that are available to high school graduates in the larger centres of the Province. So if you are graduating from high school in Nain, Lourdes, Cape St. George or on the Bay Verte Peninsula, wherever, there is no reason, coming out of a high school now that you cannot say, I can pursue any career. That is the type of thing, Mr. Speaker, that we must ensure remains the norm, because the real losers in all of this, if we allow any of our young people to not fully realize the potential, to not have the opportunity to fully develop the gifts which they have been given, then we, as a nation, and we, as a Province, are the losers, because these young people have so much to offer. If one of these young people out there decides tomorrow that he is not going to pursue a post-secondary education, this may be the one person who will have, within him, the answer to a lot of the problems and a lot of the questions that we have been pursuing for a number of years. So certainly, it is incumbent upon us as governments; it is incumbent upon us as citizens of this great country, to try to ensure that that level of support is there for all of our young people, that the encouragement is there, the motivation is there.

Mr. Speaker, if I can relate again to my own experience, in the school in which I was employed prior to getting into politics, one of the things we did was institute a universal pre-school program. All of the children in our area came to school a year earlier because we recognized that we had many children starting school in kindergarten who were disadvantaged. They did not have the stimulation that would allow them to be able to come in and compete with students from other families. So what we did was bring in a pre-school program, bring them in a year earlier.

Mr. Speaker, in addition to that - and again sending out the message as to how important education is to all of us, as part of the entry into pre-school programs - we also asked that the parents enrol in effective parenting programs, because we recognized that education is not just for the young, it is not just for a certain segment of our society, it is for all of our citizens. Mr. Speaker, we must continue to strive to make sure that these opportunities continue to be available to our young people.

We, as legislators, must try to do everything that we can to ensure that all of our young people are given every opportunity to participate, are given every opportunity to avail of the career choices that are out there, so that they can then, in turn, make a contribution, which I am sure they will, to building and growing this great nation of ours.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to rise to comment briefly on the resolution put forward by the Member for Terra Nova. It reads: `Whereas the present Canada Student Loan Program is manifestly inadequate, making the successful pursuit of post-secondary education critically less accessible and affordable to thousands of students throughout the Province and indeed, throughout Canada', therefore, in part of the resolution he says that he is calling upon all of us to support the initiative being taken by the First Ministers. Because there has been some dialogue in the local press of late on the fact that student loans and student assistance programs will be a topic for the First Ministers' Conference.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I could quote to the member the comments he made last year, in May, 1996, when the Member for Kilbride stood in his place and put forward a similar motion. At that time, he chastised the Opposition for wanting every kind of thing. He said: It is so easy to stand up and be against things, and he said: we want more money for social service, we want more money for health care, we want more money for this and he told us that we should be kind of, you know, putting everything into perspective, and I could quote here because when I did some of the research on this, I found out that our file - this is just the Hansard material - is quite extensive because we have been putting forward these kinds of resolutions since I arrived in the House in 1993.

I am pleased that the Member for Terra Nova today has put forward a resolution which is virtually identical in theme if not in word to that put forward by the Member for Kilbride on four occasions, and put forward by this member last year when we talked about funding for the parents. We had that resolution in the House in May of 1997 and on each occasion, the member whom I think, his heart is in the right place, kind of spoke not in favour of the resolution but, when the time came to vote he did not stand in his place and support it, in fact, he voted against it.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we put forward on this side, repeatedly, our proposals for handling this particular problem, and as the member alluded to, a report called: Commonsense Supporting Post-secondary Education, has some wonderful suggestions in it and it also put forward some proposals that I think all governments in Canada should be considering, and when we put forward our comments which were part of a presentation made by this Party to the Federation of Students, we certainly outlined ten different proposals that we would like to see included in a revision to the Student Loan Program and the Member for Kilbride, today put some of those forward.

We believe that we shall harmonize the federal Canada Student Loan and the provincial Newfoundland Student Loan which are currently off course, administered separately under different rules which confuse students, administrators and bankers; and it concerns me when I hear bankers for example, saying that they want to get out of the student loans altogether because they are very high risks for them and we find that when the banking industry is losing faith in the Student Loan Program, that causes some real concerns.

We also said in our presentation to the Federation of Students, that we should review the recommendations in the Student Assistance Reform Initiative released in January of this year by seven national post-secondary organizations, and we believe that we should implement tax measures, such as making student loan interest payments tax deductible. We support that. We say that when we are asking students to take on increasing debt loads, we have to treat it as something of a very serious national problem, when we find that a few years ago, when the people were taking out $10,000 or $15,000 in student loan debt, we know at that time, eight, ten, twelve years ago, as these students graduated, had chances to get jobs. Now, we are asking people to take on a debt load of $30,000 to $40,000 to $50,000 and we are saying to them in some cases: If you want a job, you are going to have to take one paying ten dollars an hour or eight dollars an hour or something like that because many of these students cannot find jobs, so the difference between my colleague from Port au Port, who just spoke and myself who graduated from university roughly the same time - although I was a student on the Parade Street Campus in 1960-61, so I was in university before he was - but when we graduated, yes I had student loans and paid them off over a ten-year period. On the day that I graduated from MUN, my total student loan was three times my gross annual salary but, at least I had a job. I had a job that I could go to and certainly I would say to members that, that is the difference today.

Students today, have much higher student loans but they do not have the kind of guarantees for job opportunities that we had a few years ago. So when we say things like, we support implementing tax measures such that we would make student loan interest payments tax deductible, we believe that is a very serious initiative. That at least would provide some, shall we say, incentive to the students.

Sometimes we would make business interest that is paid by business on loans; some of these things can be deducted. Why let business that is investing in, shall we say, the production of goods and services - you are going to let these people deduct their interest payments as part of their business tax regime; you are going to make them tax deductible - why not say to a young man or a young woman: If you are going to invest $30,000 or $40,000 in your life, in your future..., what is wrong with saying to these young people: Let's make those student loan interest payments tax deductible.? It makes good sense. It would be a forward-looking proposal.

We on this side of the House support that kind of initiative. We support giving students the option of declaring themselves dependent or independent, since many dependent students cannot rely on their parents for any help by way of financial contributions. When we put labels on people, sometimes we treat them very unfairly. My colleague from Kilbride said we should be providing a cost of living subsidy to students whose program of study is not available at home.

We put forward in this presentation to the Federation of Students, ten different proposals, ten different initiatives, that we would support. We said at that time that action on student aid is long overdue.

I say to my colleague from Terra Nova that we will be supporting his resolution here today, and I am going to keep my comments fairly short because we have several other colleagues on this side who would like to have a comment.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that we cannot continue to go the way we are going. We espouse to make education accessible, to have equality of opportunity, and when it comes to post-secondary that is not happening, because today a young person who is graduating from high school in, shall we say, Botwood or Twillingate or La Scie, is not able to access post-secondary equally as well and with the same opportunity as somebody graduating from a high school in St. John's or Mount Pearl, and that is not right.

We have to say to government and all sides, maybe the time has come for us to take bold initiatives. Maybe we should consider going back to what the Smallwood government initiated some years ago. The concept of having free tuition is not that foreign. A few years ago when we were all finishing high school, Grade XI or Grade XII was a significant level of education in many parts of this Province. Today it is just a step, so we have to take a longer look at what we mean by education. We have to look at the fact that when people leave high school and go to post-secondary, if we are going to have a commitment towards having a well-informed, well-educated population, we cannot have people held back because they do not have the financial resources to be able to maximize their potential.

We say to the Member for Terra Nova, we support his resolution. We hope that when it is taken to the federal government at the First Ministers' Conference, that it is aggressively put forward by the Premier on behalf of all of the students who are now in post-secondary and those who will be in post-secondary in the next few years, because we cannot do anything less than to aggressively support anything that will help our young people get a better chance to get forward in this world and maximize all of their abilities.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to speak today in support of the resolution presented by the Member for Terra Nova, recognizing the importance of student indebtedness and the need to deal with the issue of the Canada Student Loan Program.

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed one of the most serious problems that is faced by young people, and not only young people, in this Province, by young people and young adults who are seeking to get an education to be able to participate in the world of work, to have a chance for a gainful and decent employment, and to further have opportunities to make use of their abilities.

We have a crisis in student loans, in student financing, in student debt, today in this Province and throughout Canada. A bigger problem in this Province because so many more students, a much larger percentage of the population, would not, could not, cannot obtain a proper post-secondary education, or any post-secondary education at all, without the resources that are available from borrowing money one way or the other. We don't have a significant population of people whose families have the income to pay the cost of post-secondary education. That is the first problem.

The second problem is that tuition fees have gone through the roof. In the last five or six years tuition fees at Memorial University have climbed steadily. Obviously in response to that the student population has declined. We have seen the tuition fees from 1991 go from around $600 a semester to now $1,600 a semester. Since 1991. I see the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board there saying yes, he agrees that it is his responsibility. He acknowledges that the government has forced this increase on Memorial University and its students. That is the second problem, the enormous rise in tuition fees at public institutions such as Memorial University.

The third problem is this government's abandonment of public education at the post-secondary level, to a large extent. In the last three or fours years it has taken $20 million out of post-secondary education. Twenty million dollars removed from the support of post-secondary education in this Province. What do we see happening? The close down of programs in a public college, a vocational school. It is now the College of the North Atlantic. One wonders whether it is out in the North Atlantic or whether it is really here on home ground in the Province of Newfoundland.

We see them closing down campuses. Close down the campus in Lewisporte. They threatened to close it down in Carbonear. They gutted it with the minister's approval. They eviscerated it with the minister's approval. They closed down a campus on Bell Island. There was some lip service from the member, but they closed her down. Closed down a campus in Lewisporte. Closed down a campus in Springdale, and they leased it to somebody for a dollar.

What do we have in place of that? Private institutions. There are some forty-nine now. The tuition that is charged by the private institutions would scare the pants off you: $8,000, $10,000, $12,000 for a program. What kind of a program? How about this one? A veterinary assistant. Now, how many veterinarians are there in the Province? Half a dozen private veterinarians, most of whom probably have assistants? What do they charge for that? Twelve thousand dollars, $13,000 to be a veterinarian assistant?

Paralegals is another example. I understand there is a whole first year class who has quit at one of the paralegal institutions, disgusted with the level of the program, looking for someone to take their case, so they can sue them.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: We have another situation, a lawsuit against the government, Mr. Speaker, due to a failure of a school, I think it was the Colin Jamieson School; the school of journalism. A failure, and the students who were promised something got nothing. They are trying to sue the government because the government failed to properly look after the program.

If they call it quality assurance, Mr. Speaker, some quality assurance, some quality some assurance; neither quality nor assurance of anything.

The Minister of Education tried to give the impression yesterday in the House, that the government looks after - makes sure that they are getting value for money, that is all looked after. What he did not say was that the government plays no role whatsoever in capping the size of the tuition. None, they can charge what they like. Mr. Speaker, it is a case of, `Let the buyer beware.' Watch the ads on TV because you are paying for them if you become a student.

MR. J. BYRNE: How can they beware before they go in there?

MR. HARRIS: They cannot be aware because all they look at are the ads which tell them that they might fall in love at our academy and you better fall in love with something because you are paying for these ads. You are paying for the adds, you are paying for the costs, you are paying for the profits of the entrepreneur, Mr. Speaker, and you are not being guaranteed anything by this government except a big hefty student loan debt afterwards because this Province allows student loans to be gone right through the roof for private institutions as well as the public institutions.

That is not the case in all other provinces, Mr. Speaker. I had a women complaining to me because she was covered by the Ontario regulations and could not get a student loan to go to a private college in Newfoundland because she was not here long enough. She had to rely on the Ontario student loan regulations and they would only give student loans to public institutions.

Not in Newfoundland, Mr. Speaker, we have a proliferation of private colleges, most of them started up to take advantage of the TAGS program. Hundreds of millions of dollars gone to these institutions from the TAGS program. The people running them saw their opportunity to whack the tuition levels up because the government of Canada, through the TAGS program, was paying.

The Province saw their opportunity to close down the public institutions, eviscerate the programs, close them down, cut them off, shut them off, claiming that the gaps were being filled by the private sector.

Mr. Speaker, what we have seen is people so desperate for a chance, so desperate for hope of a job that they will undertake these $8,000 and $10,000 and $12,000 courses for a short period of time to pay for all the marketing, the costs and the profits of a private institution because this government has failed its obligation to provide a proper post-secondary system.

Mr. Speaker, why is that happening? It is happening because this government and the Premier of this Province, himself, participated at the federal level in a federal program to remove the obligation of the Government of Canada to help assist in post-secondary education and transferred them to this CHST: the Canada, Health and Social Transfer. I know their name for cutbacks. I remember when we talked about the health aspect of this, the former Minister of Health, who is now the Minister of Justice stood in this House and said: We will be losing Medicare as we know it as a result of these cutbacks. Now we see his colleague the new Minister of Health trying to defend the inadequacies of the system on the health side.

Mr. Speaker, the same problems are happening on the education side. They have been down loading it to students through the student aid program, giving up their responsibilities, and not fighting back. Now it is going to get worse. Because there is going to be an awful lot of training money on the go in the next little while. That is going to be down loaded to the Province as well. If all we can expect from the Province is what we have seen so far in the attention that they have paid...

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)!

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I fear for what will happen if this Province's attitude towards post-secondary education, as expressed in its abdication of its responsibilities for the public college system, continues when substantial amounts of training monies are made available to the Province in the ongoing discussions between the federal and provincial governments.

It is happening. There is already a deal signed with Quebec. It is going to take over responsibility for training. Newfoundland is doing the same thing. We are going to see substantial amounts of money being allocated by this Province. What we see at the same time is a serious inability to control, or unwillingness to control, no political will to control, the private sector. In fact, they are abdicating responsibility and saying that private education will do in this Province at the post-secondary education. All we will do is licence them. We won't have any control over the costs, we won't have control over the tuition, and we don't exercise any real control over the quality of that education.

There is a crisis. I support the resolution. The resolution doesn't say very much, other than recognizing the problem of student indebtedness and seeing it as a high priority. What I'm concerned by is about the solutions, and what kind of solutions can be brought forward.

There are lots of solutions for the student loan crisis and to the program. A number of them have been outlined by the students themselves in a very comprehensive brief called Common Sense: Supporting Post-Secondary Education, Securing Our Future, a brief that was prepared by the Newfoundland and Labrador Student Federation. It has a number of very sensible proposals as to how the student aid system can be improved: a system of bursaries and remissions for successful students; tax relief for students who are paying back student loans; a system proposed by national groups of a $3,000 grant for needy first-year post-secondary students, one that would be taken up I think by many students in this Province because of our need here.

I think that is something that should be part of any representation by this Province at the national level, a substantial level of support for a program that would recognize the need of students for some special grants. They are called the special opportunity grants, up to $3,000 for high-need first-year students and for single parents. That is something in the student assistance reform initiative, which is a national initiative, in January 1997, from a number of seven national organizations involved in post-secondary education. That is one I think we should promote. We should push that one because so many of our students in this Province would benefit from that, would need that. It would help them make that step of getting into post-secondary education.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: I commend that to the member in his final remarks. It is one of the measures that ought to be undertaken and I support the resolution.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, I just want to add a few words in this very important debate this afternoon as it relates to the welfare of our students, namely our post-secondary students, whether they have graduated or not, as it relates to their financial status.

The resolution today is worded that the Canada Student Loan Program with specific attention directed toward solving Canada's most single pressing problem, student indebtedness. Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, the words ought to have been more appropriately worded, `Newfoundland's most pressing crisis.' It certainly, as has been indicated by previous speakers, Mr. Speaker, this is a crisis situation in our Province today. We have young people whose energy has been zapped, who have completely lost all enthusiasm, who are in a depressed state of mind because of the financial reality that they are facing on a day to day basis.

Mr. Speaker, how is it that a young person can be expected to move forward in society when that young person is encumbered and burdened to the point of $20,000, $30,000 and in some cases $40,000? That is the reality. That is the reality today as we speak on this resolution in this hon. House, that there are literally hundreds, indeed thousands of young Newfoundlanders who opted to stay in this Province to get an education only to be faced with a debt which is essentially insurmountable. What is most unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, is that these are the young people who are being penalized.

Many young Newfoundlanders, quite sadly, leave this Province in hopes of a brighter future. However, the thousands of Newfoundlanders who are prepared to stay in this Province and attend either our university or our public school system or a private school system upon graduation or prior to graduation, they are subjected to this insurmountable debt. It has to be realized, I say to all members of this House, that this debt is a debt to society. It is a societal debt. It is bad enough and unfortunate enough that it deals with that one person as an individual. This depression, this lack of enthusiasm and this discouragement, which is a part of these students lives when they are faced with this insurmountable debt, is a debt on society because once that young person is no longer, Mr. Speaker, in a position to actively pursue other job possibilities and is burdened to the point that the energy and encouragement is lost, that becomes a loss for everybody in our Province. It is a real problem and it is one that must be taken seriously by all members in this hon. House and it is a problem that has to be addressed.

This resolution today, I would suggest, perhaps does not go far enough because what we should be doing is fully endorsing what the Canadian Federation of Students have said in this very respectable report where they listed a whole host of recommendations. What we should be doing is endorsing wholeheartedly, without exception, the recommendations that are found within this report. When we do that we are putting teeth in the very recommendation and resolution which has been brought forward by the hon. member opposite.

These young students have seen fit to realize that this situation cannot continue and from all reports, it looks as if in fact, will worsen. So, Mr. Speaker, why don't we put teeth in the resolution? Why don't we say in fact, that in addition to what is being proposed, that there is an acknowledgement that this report makes sense? It is entitled, Commonsense but in addition to that, Mr. Speaker, it makes sense. It makes sense for the very young people who we will be relying on to ensure that our future in this Province is guaranteed and secured. It is a fundamental problem. It is one that we must all take seriously for the benefit and the sake and the well-being of our young people.

These recommendations I put in the form of a summary and there are a total of ten. What I would like to do following today is just share this summary with the hon. member opposite so that perhaps not only he but all of us in this House can take steps, active steps, to make sure that the recommendations that have been put in place in this report are taken seriously, and that we can do what we can as members - we can do our utmost - to ensure that these recommendations are given the credit and the attention that they deserve.

As I have indicated, Mr. Speaker, this is a crisis for each individual student who is subjected to such personal and individual indebtedness, but in addition to that it is a crisis as a result of that and as a consequence of that to each and every one of us because they are our children, they are our family members, they are our neighbours, they are our constituents, and we must do whatever it takes to ensure that this whole Student Aid Program is seriously looked at, it is revisited, and it is, as this resolution indicates, revised and revamped to put an end to this depression which exists in our society amongst our young people because they simply cannot deal with, on a day-to-day basis, the indebtedness which they face.

It is an important issue, and it is one that we must take very seriously. We can begin by endorsing and recommending in total the recommendations that are found in this report.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's West.

MS S. OSBORNE: I am very pleased today, Mr. Speaker, to be able to speak to this resolution outlining the need to make it easier for our post-secondary students to get an education without incurring an overwhelming debt load. It gives me an opportunity to bring once again to the attention of this House the fact that there are many kinds of students and we should be concerned with all of them.

Children become students when they are at a very tender age. When children are in primary school they are in their formative years, a time when it is important, if not crucial, that they be given a good basic foundation for the years to come. They must be prepared to face high school and then post-secondary education, which charts their course, enabling them to earn a living and to provide for and nurture a family. Why is it, then, that this government makes it so difficult for so many of them to prepare themselves by allowing them to go off to school with not enough food in their bellies, not to say enough nutritious food?

The number of children in this Province who live below the poverty line is so staggering that when I brought it up recently in this House, the hon. Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation questioned the number. I would now like to quote from Special Matters: The Report of the Review of Special Education, by Patricia Canning.

"In addition to the almost 40,000 children in Newfoundland who live below the poverty line, many more children live in families whose income is just above the poverty line cut-offs. While Statistically they may not be considered `poor', in reality they are not significantly better off than those at or below the poverty line. Based on Statistics Canada report of family incomes it is estimated that at least 50 per cent of the school population is at risk of low educational achievement due to factors associated with low income."

This government continues to turn a deaf ear. It continues to permit these some 40,000 of our children to live below the poverty line, to go to school undernourished, to try to learn while they are hungry. And if this government still thinks this is not happening, I offer you another quote. I quote from page 337 of the Williams' Royal Commission, and it states: A report prepared for a provincial committee representing the Departments of Health, Social Services and Education, estimated that at least 2,000 children in 491 schools are regularly going to school hungry, and calculated that if the figure is correct that one in four children is living in poverty. Up to 32,527 students could be affected by hunger.

The Williams Royal Commission obtained this information from a report entitled: School Lunch Program Project, a report of the working committee which represented the Departments of Health, Social Services and Education, Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, and we continue to beg for a comprehensive School Lunch Program. How much longer will this government continue to condone this poverty and refuse to implement this program for children of this Province?

The story of our students continues, Mr. Speaker. Many of these same children, primary school children, some in their first year of school have to board buses and in many cases, ride for half-an-hour or more over bumpy roads so bad that even the bus drivers complain, because this government continues to close schools in rural parts of the Province. And speaking of schools, some of the buildings that house these students are so structurally unsound that, as one of my colleagues mentioned just last week, there is a school in his district where the floor boards had to be removed to get at the dead rats. They felt the building was too unsafe to go under.

Our Newfoundland students, Mr. Speaker, are in classrooms where the student-teacher ratio is so high, that it renders it impossible for our teachers to give the degree of attention that is not only desirable, but necessary to prepare these students to make them ready for the road to higher learning that lies ahead. They are continuing to cut teachers. We are losing music teachers; we are losing physical education teachers, among others. Is this fair to our students? Should we not be endeavouring to turn out students with a well-rounded education so they can be competitive in today's market?

Now, I get to our post-secondary students, the ones to which this resolution refers. I commend this resolution. I commend anything that relieves the burden on our young people - I am speaking of easing burdens. I again refer to our social assistance recipients, those who are parents, in many cases parents of young students themselves. These parents have received student loans in an endeavour to improve their lifestyle; these parents have been asked - no not asked, ordered, to repay the shelter component portion of their loan immediately - and we are talking about hardship on our post-secondary students.

These parents do not dispute repaying the shelter component, but through no fault of their own, through the fault of a breakdown in communication caused by whomever, but certainly not by them, are being ordered to repay the shelter component in a manner which this government dictates, causing undue hardship to be perpetrated upon them and their children because they will be left with as little as twenty-five dollars a week for them and their children to get by, when it would be so very easy for this government to schedule the shelter component as an overpayment, when it would not bankrupt this government to do so because, as the minister, herself, admits, there are not many students involved; when she could make a decision to schedule the overpayment for all, instead of putting these students through agony and her staff through days and days of unnecessary work by having to deal with each student on an individual basis. Why is this department dealing individually when each case is basically the same?

Let me outline the quirks of the problem as it applies to the student-parents who have called me. There was a shelter component included in the student loan. The Department of Human Resources wanted to claw back the shelter component. The Department of Human Resources sent out a directive to this effect; however, this directive was in many cases received by the student after they received the loan. There was a communication breakdown in getting the right information out to the students. Paying back the shelter component was never in dispute; paying back the shelter component all at once or over a period of the semester, which is just two months, is in dispute. It has caused and continues to cause unbelievable hardship on these student-parents and their children especially at this time of year, when they have to provide necessities like winter clothing and boots.

It is ironic that this resolution, to make things easier for post-secondary students, and the resolution, I might add, that I support very strongly, is being put forth by this very government that allows a portion of our most vulnerable post-secondary students to endure such hardship, a hardship that could so easily be alleviated.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to comment for a moment on the income contingent loan repayment program that I referred to in the beginning, suggesting that all of the suggestions that were made can be made under this kind of system.

Unless someone can otherwise point out to me some of the flaws in this particular system, I think it can carry out the ideas, the suggestions made through our own students, and through the seven national organizations. All of these can be done through this income contingent loan repayment program, a method that recoups payment of the loans through the income tax system in which payments are related to income. The more a person makes, the more the person pays. Instead of dealing through the banks, the loans system allows one to borrow from the government. Banks are gone. You borrow from the government while you are attending school. After graduation, the person starts pay-back of the loan at a rate that is dependent on the income. As the income rises, payments rise, until the complete borrowing is paid off.

What this will do is this. There will be no collection necessary, there will be no collecting agencies necessary, because this can be done very effectively and very simply through the income tax system. What a great relief that will be for students: one, to have the collecting agencies out of the system, and to have a pay-back that is related to income levels related to financial ability.

As far as I know, this system is being practised in Australia. In Australia it costs 1.5 per cent of the total cost of the administration to do this program, whereas in Canada the Federal Government is paying 5 per cent to the banks to administer their program. Australia is able to do this. I think it is a system that is worth looking at.

In any event, as I said earlier, I am not glued to a particular system; I just thought this was a good one, that it relieves some of the frustrations experienced in the present system and certainly appears to be a system that can be operated very easily and very simply.

It is one that I recommend and, as I indicated earlier, under this system we can bring in all of the recommendations that hon. members mentioned, that they gleaned from various reports and from the literature on this particular topic.

The important thing is that we have changed, we have reformed, we have revision to the present Canada Student Loan Program that makes education accessible and affordable to all students and a system that has in place a debt management system that is proportionate to levels of income and financial ability. These are the things that we look for. This is what the students want; this is what the parents of this Province want in any effective Canada Student Loan Program reform or revision.

Mr. Speaker, I thank hon. members for their contribution. I thank them for their support, and I believe that the passage of this particular resolution today will have the effect of giving added impetus to moving this issue. As I said earlier, the passage of the resolution itself will not give it the national attention that it deserves, but it will do a couple of things: It will show the students of this Province, it will show the parents of this Province, that we recognize their situation, their plight, and we are concerned about it. I believe it will give the government the needed impetus that it needs to move the issue forward on the national level.

I believe that the Premier will continue to demonstrate his positive and aggressive action in this matter and I believe that he will show and demonstrate positive leadership, that he will get in front of this issue and take it to the national level where this thing can be carried out to a successful completion.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: I have that belief, Mr. Speaker. I believe that this issue is going to move forward. Otherwise we would have failed to show the students of this Province, and the parents, that we recognize the problem or that we are concerned about the problem.

As I have said, I believe that the passage of this resolution will energize and motivate the government and the Premier to move forward so that we can demonstrate to all of the students in this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, so that we can demonstrate to them that we recognize and are concerned about their educational plight and their financial crisis, and that we want it resolved immediately.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Is the House ready for the question?

All those in favour of the resolution, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Those against, 'nay'.

MR. TULK: Division, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Bring in the members.

 

Division

 

MR. TULK: I realize that we have not run out of the time of the clock, but I wonder if we are ready to put the vote on this side.

AN HON. MEMBER: The vote should proceed.

CLERK: The hon. the Minister of Development and Rural Renewal, the hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy, the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General, the hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, Mr. Walsh, the hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board, the hon. the Minister of Education, the hon. the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods, Mr. Lush, Mr. Oldford, Mr. Barrett, the hon. the Minister of Human Resources and Employment, the hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour, the hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, the hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, the hon. the Minister of Government Services and Lands, Mr. Wiseman, Mr. Andersen, Mr. Canning, Mr. Smith, Mr. Ramsay, Mr. Whelan, Ms M. Hodder, Mr. Woodford, Mr. Mercer, Ms Thistle, Mr. Sparrow, Mr. H. Hodder, Mr. Shelley, Mr. Jack Byrne, Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr. T. Osborne, Mr. Ottenheimer, Ms S. Osborne, Mr. Harris, Ms Jones.

Mr. Speaker, thirty-six ayes, no nays.

MR. SPEAKER: I declare the motion carried.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I think the adjournment motion is in order, I think the Speaker just calls it. I wanted to tell my cooperative colleague on the other side that tomorrow we are going to be back doing that finance bill again.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: That is the finance bill. We have the other one done.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, at 2:00 p.m.